Poll: How do we get them to see the truth?
This poll is closed.
Peacefull reasoning 69.23% 9 69.23%
Full attack of facts 30.77% 4 30.77%
Total 13 votes 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-06-2016, 03:08 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(10-06-2016 09:32 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I get so exhausted with these types. They just read from what amounts to a script, and then go on to list huge amounts of information about some biological process, even after they're told people here have degrees in this field, as if our biology programs didn't include explaining to us exactly what DNA was and how it operated... and in the end, their entire argument still consists of, "Gorsh, Mickey, this biology stuff sure is complicated!"

And yet every one of these guys manages to conflate abiogenesis with evolution, insists on sticking with their own asserted definitions of things that don't follow the actual definitions (so they can insert their woo into the processes), and refuses to listen to credible sources. But I guess we're stuck talking about how just gosh-darn complicated DNA is, and how it just couldn't have emerged via natural processes...

I still don't feel like arguing with yet another ID/IC proponent on here, but I'll point you to NASA's abiogenesis research department so you can get a feel for what scientists really think on the subject:

How did life on Earth get started? Three new papers co-authored by Mike Russell, a research scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., strengthen the case that Earth's first life began at alkaline hydrothermal vents at the bottom of oceans. Scientists are interested in understanding early life on Earth because if we ever hope to find life on other worlds -- especially icy worlds with subsurface oceans such as Jupiter's moon Europa and Saturn's Enceladus -- we need to know what chemical signatures to look for.

Two papers published recently in the journal
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B provide more detail on the chemical and precursor metabolic reactions that have to take place to pave the pathway for life. Russell and his co-authors describe how the interactions between the earliest oceans and alkaline hydrothermal fluids likely produced acetate (comparable to vinegar). The acetate is a product of methane and hydrogen from the alkaline hydrothermal vents and carbon dioxide dissolved in the surrounding ocean. Once this early chemical pathway was forged, acetate could become the basis of other biological molecules. They also describe how two kinds of "nano-engines" that create organic carbon and polymers -- energy currency of the first cells -- could have been assembled from inorganic minerals.

A paper published in the journal
Biochimica et Biophysica Acta analyzes the structural similarity between the most ancient enzymes of life and minerals precipitated at these alkaline vents, an indication that the first life didn't have to invent its first catalysts and engines.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-235

Edit to Add: Try educating yourself on the state of research, in all seriousness. They've come a long way toward solving the problem. See, for instance:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/

Can you answer these questions:

1. Where do the information bearing properties of DNA come from?

2. Please describe the origins of genetic information.

3. DNA is located in a protein molecule. It takes DNA to build a protein. Which came first, the DNA or the protein?

4. Please provide a step-by-step natural explanation of the process of how DNA is copied and transferred to an assembly line where amino acids are linked together precisely as instructed, then formed into a functional protein, then transported to an exact location in a protein machine prior to machine operation. Explain how all the transport systems work. Explain the sequences of operation, the communication protocol, the operations of the machines, the assembly instructions, energy harvesting,.... Please explain how this all happened naturally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 03:13 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(09-06-2016 08:32 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  I have not personally insulted anyone in this thread and I have no personal problems with anyone here, even though I was insulted numerous times in here by multiple posters.

I answered numerous questions beginning on page 4 of 10 of this thread to the best of my ability. Please just answer only 4 questions of mine. If you can not answer these questions or can only answer some of them, that is fine as well, just say so.

Questions below:

1. Where do the information bearing properties of DNA come from?

2. Please describe the origins of genetic information.

3. DNA is located in a protein molecule. It takes DNA to build a protein. Which came first, the DNA or the protein?

4. Please provide a step-by-step natural explanation of the process of how DNA is copied and transferred to an assembly line where amino acids are linked together precisely as instructed, then formed into a functional protein, then transported to an exact location in a protein machine prior to machine operation. Explain how all the transport systems work. Explain the sequences of operation, the communication protocol, the operations of the machines, the assembly instructions, energy harvesting,.... Please explain how this all happened naturally.

Thanks.

"1. Where do the information bearing properties of DNA come from?"

They didn't "come" from anywhere. Your question is akin to asking "where do the information bearing properties of a redox reaction come from?" DNA is a molecule that has been selected and altered via evolutionary processes over the course of billions of years. The very first "living" thing clearly didn't have DNA, and probably didn't have RNA either. Why? Because the very first "living" thing was likely little more than a self-replicating redox reaction. After all, that is all life really is...redox chemistry. That is why you need to respire. It is why plants need to respire. It is why single-celled organisms need diffusion.


"2. Please describe the origins of genetic information."

Redox chemistry.

"3. DNA is located in a protein molecule. It takes DNA to build a protein. Which came first, the DNA or the protein?"

Amino acids came first, then proteins, then RNA, then the DNA.

"4. Please provide a step-by-step natural explanation of the process of how DNA is copied and transferred to an assembly line where amino acids are linked together precisely as instructed, then formed into a functional protein, then transported to an exact location in a protein machine prior to machine operation. Explain how all the transport systems work. Explain the sequences of operation, the communication protocol, the operations of the machines, the assembly instructions, energy harvesting,.... Please explain how this all happened naturally."

Natural selection of a self-replicating redox reaction in the ancient oceans on Earth more than 3 billion years ago.

Amino acids (which can form naturally within the oceans or can be seeded from comets as we have found evidence of organic molecules on comets and meteorites) in the oceans formed proteins, becoming protected in lipid bilayers (the origins of the cellular membrane). Natural selection provided a mechanism by which the most efficient of these early cellular "lifeforms" were able to replicate. Natural selection then also provided a way by which these organisms can become more complex through natural processes and how diversity within the early "genetic" code arises through mutation.



You are the ancestor of a redox reaction. You are redox chemistry.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
10-06-2016, 03:16 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(03-06-2016 04:56 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  Facts only mean something if people choose to accept them. Most religious people I know accept facts fine, it's that they hold "non-verifiable" beliefs that makes them religious. How to stop somebody from holding a belief that can't be proven false? I don't know. Neither peaceful reasoning or a hard attack on them seem to be a reliable method.

That being said, that was a tl;dr skim. Walls of text hurt me.

My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 03:19 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(10-06-2016 03:08 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 09:32 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I get so exhausted with these types. They just read from what amounts to a script, and then go on to list huge amounts of information about some biological process, even after they're told people here have degrees in this field, as if our biology programs didn't include explaining to us exactly what DNA was and how it operated... and in the end, their entire argument still consists of, "Gorsh, Mickey, this biology stuff sure is complicated!"

And yet every one of these guys manages to conflate abiogenesis with evolution, insists on sticking with their own asserted definitions of things that don't follow the actual definitions (so they can insert their woo into the processes), and refuses to listen to credible sources. But I guess we're stuck talking about how just gosh-darn complicated DNA is, and how it just couldn't have emerged via natural processes...

I still don't feel like arguing with yet another ID/IC proponent on here, but I'll point you to NASA's abiogenesis research department so you can get a feel for what scientists really think on the subject:

How did life on Earth get started? Three new papers co-authored by Mike Russell, a research scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., strengthen the case that Earth's first life began at alkaline hydrothermal vents at the bottom of oceans. Scientists are interested in understanding early life on Earth because if we ever hope to find life on other worlds -- especially icy worlds with subsurface oceans such as Jupiter's moon Europa and Saturn's Enceladus -- we need to know what chemical signatures to look for.

Two papers published recently in the journal
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B provide more detail on the chemical and precursor metabolic reactions that have to take place to pave the pathway for life. Russell and his co-authors describe how the interactions between the earliest oceans and alkaline hydrothermal fluids likely produced acetate (comparable to vinegar). The acetate is a product of methane and hydrogen from the alkaline hydrothermal vents and carbon dioxide dissolved in the surrounding ocean. Once this early chemical pathway was forged, acetate could become the basis of other biological molecules. They also describe how two kinds of "nano-engines" that create organic carbon and polymers -- energy currency of the first cells -- could have been assembled from inorganic minerals.

A paper published in the journal
Biochimica et Biophysica Acta analyzes the structural similarity between the most ancient enzymes of life and minerals precipitated at these alkaline vents, an indication that the first life didn't have to invent its first catalysts and engines.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-235

Edit to Add: Try educating yourself on the state of research, in all seriousness. They've come a long way toward solving the problem. See, for instance:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/

Can you answer these questions:

1. Where do the information bearing properties of DNA come from?

2. Please describe the origins of genetic information.

3. DNA is located in a protein molecule. It takes DNA to build a protein. Which came first, the DNA or the protein?

4. Please provide a step-by-step natural explanation of the process of how DNA is copied and transferred to an assembly line where amino acids are linked together precisely as instructed, then formed into a functional protein, then transported to an exact location in a protein machine prior to machine operation. Explain how all the transport systems work. Explain the sequences of operation, the communication protocol, the operations of the machines, the assembly instructions, energy harvesting,.... Please explain how this all happened naturally.

All of your questions put the cart before the horse too.

DNA isn't information. It isn't an analog for information. It is more correct to say that information (like the way computers use and transmit information) emulates the way that chemical reactions produce products from reactants as a result of the chemical and physical properties of the environment and the individual elements.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
10-06-2016, 03:29 PM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2016 03:40 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
TBD - Thanks, I appreciate you answering on my behalf. I've had a rather busy couple of days, and can only get on here intermittently. I'm glad you have more energy than I do. I just don't grasp how it's so hard to understand that just because a molecule's reactive function resembles the sort of code that man would make (and because we have the ability to "hijack" the chemistry now to produce our own desired results, much as we do when, say, making aspirin out of base chemicals) that it doesn't mean it's somehow magical. I just don't get the leap of illogic.

CDF - I'm presuming you were trying to be clever, rather than actually saying thanks, when you cited the conclusion of the article. If you mean what I think you mean by citing it, you clearly didn't read the article. The point they're making is that it may prove to be impossible to precisely replicate what happened historically because there are too many ways it could have happened, too many paths that they have discovered by which it can happen, and it's just not possible (given the horizontal sharing of DNA we still see today in bacteria, for instance) to narrow it down to which of those multiple paths was the one that actually occurred. The article suggests, then, that it's better to focus on learning the mechanisms of those paths, to determine all the possible ways life can occur-- it may be critical to discovering life on other planets/moons, since there's no reason to presume that life elsewhere would happen to follow our exact path.

I see a similar error-of-conclusion when talking about human origins with Creationists. They hear scientists talking about how we can't be sure which path human evolution took, and they conclude that we don't know anything about it... but what they don't realize is that the reason the scientists are saying that is because, again, we have too many candidates. It's simply that it's difficult to pinpoint which precise route humanity took, along our tree of ancestors (and cousin-branches that didn't lead to humans after all), because there were so many different types of pre-human transitional fossils. Yet somehow, those Creationists are so full of their own presuppositions that they read the statements as if the scientists are saying, "We have no idea whether or not humans evolved from apelike ancestors", when that is actually the opposite of what they are saying. To add insult to injury, they'll often "quote-mine" the scientists out of context in order to make them sound like they're saying what the Creationist wishes scientists would say, when they're saying nothing of the sort.

These are the reasons I've been reluctant to respond to each subsequent iteration of Creationist Playbook-reading clone that we get in this forum, asking the same questions in the same way, and demanding answers of us that they have no intent on really considering. We know your playbook, and it's not going to work.

When you demonstrate that you have learned something from responses that actually cite to what we actually know about how biology works, instead of misrepresenting both Information Theory and the Theory of Evolution repeatedly, we can begin to have the conversation you seem to want to have. Start by learning what TBD just taught you, d'accord?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
10-06-2016, 03:42 PM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2016 03:45 PM by Commonsensei.)
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
Even if the questions presented didn't have answers to them. We don't automatically fill that space with God. (God of the gaps)

Their was a time when the understanding of lighting & thunder was the god's did it. Thor, Zeus, Set Yopaat. etc etc.
Ancient people didn't have the slightest conception of static electricity. Or positive and negative charges that could be caused threw the water droplets. Today we know. And the gap has been filled.

Why is the grass green? Why is the sky blue? These were big questions at a time.

The god of the gaps is not an answer. Your filling the space with something you don't know to explain something you don't understand.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Commonsensei's post
10-06-2016, 04:16 PM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2016 04:27 PM by CDF47.)
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(10-06-2016 03:13 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(09-06-2016 08:32 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  I have not personally insulted anyone in this thread and I have no personal problems with anyone here, even though I was insulted numerous times in here by multiple posters.

I answered numerous questions beginning on page 4 of 10 of this thread to the best of my ability. Please just answer only 4 questions of mine. If you can not answer these questions or can only answer some of them, that is fine as well, just say so.

Questions below:

1. Where do the information bearing properties of DNA come from?

2. Please describe the origins of genetic information.

3. DNA is located in a protein molecule. It takes DNA to build a protein. Which came first, the DNA or the protein?

4. Please provide a step-by-step natural explanation of the process of how DNA is copied and transferred to an assembly line where amino acids are linked together precisely as instructed, then formed into a functional protein, then transported to an exact location in a protein machine prior to machine operation. Explain how all the transport systems work. Explain the sequences of operation, the communication protocol, the operations of the machines, the assembly instructions, energy harvesting,.... Please explain how this all happened naturally.

Thanks.

"1. Where do the information bearing properties of DNA come from?"

They didn't "come" from anywhere. Your question is akin to asking "where do the information bearing properties of a redox reaction come from?" DNA is a molecule that has been selected and altered via evolutionary processes over the course of billions of years. The very first "living" thing clearly didn't have DNA, and probably didn't have RNA either. Why? Because the very first "living" thing was likely little more than a self-replicating redox reaction. After all, that is all life really is...redox chemistry. That is why you need to respire. It is why plants need to respire. It is why single-celled organisms need diffusion.


"2. Please describe the origins of genetic information."

Redox chemistry.

"3. DNA is located in a protein molecule. It takes DNA to build a protein. Which came first, the DNA or the protein?"

Amino acids came first, then proteins, then RNA, then the DNA.

"4. Please provide a step-by-step natural explanation of the process of how DNA is copied and transferred to an assembly line where amino acids are linked together precisely as instructed, then formed into a functional protein, then transported to an exact location in a protein machine prior to machine operation. Explain how all the transport systems work. Explain the sequences of operation, the communication protocol, the operations of the machines, the assembly instructions, energy harvesting,.... Please explain how this all happened naturally."

Natural selection of a self-replicating redox reaction in the ancient oceans on Earth more than 3 billion years ago.

Amino acids (which can form naturally within the oceans or can be seeded from comets as we have found evidence of organic molecules on comets and meteorites) in the oceans formed proteins, becoming protected in lipid bilayers (the origins of the cellular membrane). Natural selection provided a mechanism by which the most efficient of these early cellular "lifeforms" were able to replicate. Natural selection then also provided a way by which these organisms can become more complex through natural processes and how diversity within the early "genetic" code arises through mutation.



You are the ancestor of a redox reaction. You are redox chemistry.

Where does the information come from? DNA code (genetic information) provides very specific and complex programming to precisely link strings of amino acids together (often long strings) to serve as specific components as part of a machine in the cell after forming into proteins. Where did the highly specific and complex information which creates highly specific and complex molecular machines and extremely efficient and effective motors come from? These machines are also irreducibly complex, in that if one component fails, the overall machine is either degraded or fails to function.

To try to say redox reactions developed this extremely vast, highly specified, and incredibly complex code, processes, components, subsystems, and systems makes no sense to me. There are no other scientists making that claim either.

Thanks for taking the time though to provide answers as you see them without throwing out insults or anything like that. I read the information you provided and learned some things about redox reactings, so thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 04:26 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(10-06-2016 03:29 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  TBD - Thanks, I appreciate you answering on my behalf. I've had a rather busy couple of days, and can only get on here intermittently. I'm glad you have more energy than I do. I just don't grasp how it's so hard to understand that just because a molecule's reactive function resembles the sort of code that man would make (and because we have the ability to "hijack" the chemistry now to produce our own desired results, much as we do when, say, making aspirin out of base chemicals) that it doesn't mean it's somehow magical. I just don't get the leap of illogic.

CDF - I'm presuming you were trying to be clever, rather than actually saying thanks, when you cited the conclusion of the article. If you mean what I think you mean by citing it, you clearly didn't read the article. The point they're making is that it may prove to be impossible to precisely replicate what happened historically because there are too many ways it could have happened, too many paths that they have discovered by which it can happen, and it's just not possible (given the horizontal sharing of DNA we still see today in bacteria, for instance) to narrow it down to which of those multiple paths was the one that actually occurred. The article suggests, then, that it's better to focus on learning the mechanisms of those paths, to determine all the possible ways life can occur-- it may be critical to discovering life on other planets/moons, since there's no reason to presume that life elsewhere would happen to follow our exact path.

I see a similar error-of-conclusion when talking about human origins with Creationists. They hear scientists talking about how we can't be sure which path human evolution took, and they conclude that we don't know anything about it... but what they don't realize is that the reason the scientists are saying that is because, again, we have too many candidates. It's simply that it's difficult to pinpoint which precise route humanity took, along our tree of ancestors (and cousin-branches that didn't lead to humans after all), because there were so many different types of pre-human transitional fossils. Yet somehow, those Creationists are so full of their own presuppositions that they read the statements as if the scientists are saying, "We have no idea whether or not humans evolved from apelike ancestors", when that is actually the opposite of what they are saying. To add insult to injury, they'll often "quote-mine" the scientists out of context in order to make them sound like they're saying what the Creationist wishes scientists would say, when they're saying nothing of the sort.

These are the reasons I've been reluctant to respond to each subsequent iteration of Creationist Playbook-reading clone that we get in this forum, asking the same questions in the same way, and demanding answers of us that they have no intent on really considering. We know your playbook, and it's not going to work.

When you demonstrate that you have learned something from responses that actually cite to what we actually know about how biology works, instead of misrepresenting both Information Theory and the Theory of Evolution repeatedly, we can begin to have the conversation you seem to want to have. Start by learning what TBD just taught you, d'accord?

I did sincerely mean thanks for providing the information. I read through it all and it was interesting.

I do strongly feel that these systems were designed, as was the universe, but I hope we can continue to have these types of conversations. I will not play by any playbook or anything like that. I just want to have honest conversations like I feel we are beginning to have without insults or name calling or anything like that.

I understand some of the points and frustrations you've had in the past regarding this topic. I have had similar frustrations and we may never agree but would be great to continue to discuss this topic and others.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 04:41 PM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2016 04:48 PM by CDF47.)
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(10-06-2016 03:42 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  Even if the questions presented didn't have answers to them. We don't automatically fill that space with God. (God of the gaps)

Their was a time when the understanding of lighting & thunder was the god's did it. Thor, Zeus, Set Yopaat. etc etc.
Ancient people didn't have the slightest conception of static electricity. Or positive and negative charges that could be caused threw the water droplets. Today we know. And the gap has been filled.

Why is the grass green? Why is the sky blue? These were big questions at a time.

The god of the gaps is not an answer. Your filling the space with something you don't know to explain something you don't understand.

Those were pagan religions which had creation stories straight out of "Cat and the Hat."

Below is a comparison of Genesis 1 creation to science:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

This is not a God of the gaps argument. I feel the specific and complex information, systems, and processes in DNA to molecular machine construction cannot ever be explained naturally. I infer design just like I infer that an airplane is designed when I see one; although, the DNA process makes the airplane look like a joke in comparison. Do you have any idea how many man-hours it takes to design and build a 747 airplane and how much knowledge it took over the millennium just to get to this level of intelligence for humans? That airplane is a joke compared to the specified complexity of DNA and the processes discussed and these machines are at a nano-scale. DNA is the most densely packed and elaborately detailed assembly of information in the known universe. If human genetic information were uncompressed and stretch out, it would extend for 6.5 billion miles. 3 percent of that information is for coding and the other 97 percent is non-coding but serves many other type of processes (almost like an operating system). It is just amazing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 04:50 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(10-06-2016 04:16 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 03:13 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "1. Where do the information bearing properties of DNA come from?"

They didn't "come" from anywhere. Your question is akin to asking "where do the information bearing properties of a redox reaction come from?" DNA is a molecule that has been selected and altered via evolutionary processes over the course of billions of years. The very first "living" thing clearly didn't have DNA, and probably didn't have RNA either. Why? Because the very first "living" thing was likely little more than a self-replicating redox reaction. After all, that is all life really is...redox chemistry. That is why you need to respire. It is why plants need to respire. It is why single-celled organisms need diffusion.


"2. Please describe the origins of genetic information."

Redox chemistry.

"3. DNA is located in a protein molecule. It takes DNA to build a protein. Which came first, the DNA or the protein?"

Amino acids came first, then proteins, then RNA, then the DNA.

"4. Please provide a step-by-step natural explanation of the process of how DNA is copied and transferred to an assembly line where amino acids are linked together precisely as instructed, then formed into a functional protein, then transported to an exact location in a protein machine prior to machine operation. Explain how all the transport systems work. Explain the sequences of operation, the communication protocol, the operations of the machines, the assembly instructions, energy harvesting,.... Please explain how this all happened naturally."

Natural selection of a self-replicating redox reaction in the ancient oceans on Earth more than 3 billion years ago.

Amino acids (which can form naturally within the oceans or can be seeded from comets as we have found evidence of organic molecules on comets and meteorites) in the oceans formed proteins, becoming protected in lipid bilayers (the origins of the cellular membrane). Natural selection provided a mechanism by which the most efficient of these early cellular "lifeforms" were able to replicate. Natural selection then also provided a way by which these organisms can become more complex through natural processes and how diversity within the early "genetic" code arises through mutation.



You are the ancestor of a redox reaction. You are redox chemistry.

Where does the information come from? DNA code (genetic information) provides very specific and complex programming to precisely link strings of amino acids together (often long strings) to serve as specific components as part of a machine in the cell after forming into proteins. Where did the highly specific and complex information which creates highly specific and complex molecular machines and extremely efficient and effective motors come from? These machines are also irreducibly complex, in that if one component fails, the overall machine is either degraded or fails to function.

To try to say redox reactions developed this extremely vast, highly specified, and incredibly complex code, processes, components, subsystems, and systems makes no sense to me. There are no other scientists making that claim either.

Thanks for taking the time though to provide answers as you see them without throwing out insults or anything like that. I read the information you provided and learned some things about redox reactings, so thank you.

DNA isn't "programming" nor is it "information" in the sense you're using it. DNA is a molecule comprised of proteins that undergoes a chemical reaction to reproduce itself. It's redox chemistry. It's the same reason any other redox reaction is "programmed" or contains the "information" necessary for the chemical reaction to proceed.

Your special pleading assigns a special significance to one molecule undergoing a chemical reaction but not all other chemical reactions.


I'm a scientist and I'm telling you that the redox chemistry that allows you to live, is the same redox chemistry that allows a nematode to survive and a plant to photosyntheisze and iron to rust.

Life is a unique form of self-replicating chemistry that has evolved over billions of years into the complex series of reactions we see today.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: